In the last week of August, I received a phone call from someone who identified herself as a volunteer for Senator Spilka. She wanted to know whether she could count on me to vote for her candidate. I told her that it was not likely as I regarded the senator as being anti-business. She then questioned how I could come to that conclusion, given that the senator has overwhelming support from labor unions. Huh? I confess that I found that logic hard to follow.

My comment about Spilka's anti-business posture traces to the tax imposed on computer services that gained the yes votes from all of Framingham's legislators: Spilka, Sannicandro, and Walsh. The few Republicans in the legislature proposed a repeal of this job-killing tax, and those same solons voted against repeal. The high-tech business community howled, whereupon the MetroWest News sensibly editorialized for repeal. Now I have read that the senator is sponsoring her own repeal measure. I suppose that makes political sense-- the safest path is to be on both sides of an issue; as Senator Kerry once said "I was for the war before I was against it."

My political calculus differs somewhat from that of the News. While I concede that the issues of importance to liberals (e.g. abortions, health care, schools, same-sex marriages, equal pay for women, women's rights, reduced tuitions for illegal aliens, EBT cards, voter identification, public worker pensions) are indeed useful, I believe that in large measure they are dwarfed by the need for Massachusetts to retain and expand its skilled workforce. I note that none of the candidates the News are endorsing has addressed the high-tech tax issue and jobs. And indeed, the News no longer makes any mention of this ill-considered tax or its proponents.

The phrases used or implied provide the suggestion that the News' editorialists will endorse anyone who is thought to be a winner. Spilka is characterized as courageous, tireless, independent, forward-looking, coalition-building exemplar. It's possible that she is also fond of apple pie.

As to the Republican primary, Addivinola is "articulate." That he is a "mainstream Republican" is a kiss of political death in a blue-dominated state.

Mike Stopa, a scientist, is apparently confused, having political positions that appear to be opposite from his party; were he a Democrat, he would be described as an independent thinker. He is dismissed as he has no experience in elective positions. Sort of reminds you of Elizabeth Warren- another of your endorsees; the rules for the majority party are obviously different from the minority party.

As to Tierney, he is now described as "eccentric," as though he was like the crazy uncle kept in an attic. I recall that there was a time when the News considered him as an experienced campaigner. Now Spilka kindly labels him as engaging in a war on women. This kind of nonsense appeals only to low-information voters, i.e. those easily susceptible to bumper-sticker sloganeering.